We are BACK!!!! NHL AND NHLPA REACH DEAL ON COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

We've gone over this before. The NHL simply adds a no-strike clause to the "play during negotiations" agreement. If the NHLPA doesn't agree to that, then the NHL locks out the players.

I'm just furthering, or attempting to at least, santiclaws' point.

---

You guys taking this position are glossing over the little fact that playing any further under the most recent CBA (which is effectively what this would have been) was unacceptable to the owners. Do you think if the owners had proposed continuing for another year under the last CBA the players would have rejected it? Of course not. They'd have been happy to sign on for another 10 years of that without hestitation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jammer06

There is a flip side to this however. With the rate of revenue growth that was in the last CBA many of those long term deals turned into discount deals in the prime years (by comparative salaries) and were locked in longer. While the overall money when initially signed seemed big, the longer terms actually spread top players money out. Overall the dynamic of selling a tattoo for team success will no longer be in a few gm's handbags when they have to keep pulling it out every three years.

---

On the contrary. By allowing teams to resign their own players for up to seven years, they would have to worry even LESS about that dynamic. If you're player A, and the team you've been on for the past 3-5 years is offering you a seven year deal for 4 million a year for every year, do you take that one or the one from another team offering you 5 million a year for three or five years?

In addition, think about the fact that most players don't start using their first pro contract until they're 19+ years old, and their first contract is three years in length, we're talking about the player potentially signing on for a seven year deal DURING his prime. He'll be 29+ years old at the end of that contract and can now freely go to any team he likes or stay at his current one. If the team is good enough to warrant that tattoo talk, they're also going to be good enough to have found some younger players that could step into that role should they lose said player.

Again, this is now about the top tier players protecting their $14 million dollar years while they skate off into retirement with three years and 1.5 million left on the 15 year contract they signed. The ONLY reason they'd be against a 5% variance is because of this. I have yet to see any other reasoning as to why they'd turn that down.

To consider
How Zach Parise Signing for 13 Years Is Good for Kyle Brodziak | mc79hockey.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOSTcauseZERO

We've gone over this before. The NHL simply adds a no-strike clause to the "play during negotiations" agreement. If the NHLPA doesn't agree to that, then the NHL locks out the players.

I'm just furthering, or attempting to at least, santiclaws' point.

---

Let's just say the NHL was content to play this year under the old CBA, ignoring the problems, while negotiating. A no-strike, no-lockout pledge is signed. The players were happy with the last CBA, the owners the ones wanting the change. Do you really think there would be any incentive for the players to negotiate? They don't want to change.

All it would have done is pushed the problem back to next summer. The owners demands now, wouldn't change by playing another season under the old CBA. The players willingness to concede to those changes also wouldn't be changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dana

Let's just say the NHL was content to play this year under the old CBA, ignoring the problems, while negotiating. A no-strike, no-lockout pledge is signed. The players were happy with the last CBA, the owners the ones wanting the change. Do you really think there would be any incentive for the players to negotiate? They don't want to change.

All it would have done is pushed the problem back to next summer. The owners demands now, wouldn't change by playing another season under the old CBA. The players willingness to concede to those changes also wouldn't be changed.

---

Considering how the season ended last year, I would have been thrilled if they put this off for one more season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmytheKing

On the contrary. By allowing teams to resign their own players for up to seven years, they would have to worry even LESS about that dynamic. If you're player A, and the team you've been on for the past 3-5 years is offering you a seven year deal for 4 million a year for every year, do you take that one or the one from another team offering you 5 million a year for three or five years?

In addition, think about the fact that most players don't start using their first pro contract until they're 19+ years old, and their first contract is three years in length, we're talking about the player potentially signing on for a seven year deal DURING his prime. He'll be 29+ years old at the end of that contract and can now freely go to any team he likes or stay at his current one. If the team is good enough to warrant that tattoo talk, they're also going to be good enough to have found some younger players that could step into that role should they lose said player.

Again, this is now about the top tier players protecting their $14 million dollar years while they skate off into retirement with three years and 1.5 million left on the 15 year contract they signed. The ONLY reason they'd be against a 5% variance is because of this. I have yet to see any other reasoning as to why they'd turn that down.

---

I completely agree with your assessment excepting I can't see a 7 year second contract with a 5% variance at Kopitar money becoming the norm for gm's and I see it even less for the players if they want to sign at Browns levels for 5.

I do really wonder what's in it for the league to not have projected cash liabilities within a cap system. I can't quite figure what they would leverage that ability against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jammer06

Without the ability of the gm's to decrease the AAV of these contracts against the cap it shortens the pool of money first and foremost. Secondly don't forget this is also meant to limit that 2nd contract where gm's risk losing a developed player to FA. Doughty's deal aside the variance issue will not allow not only a ramp on the backside but a ramp on the front side. The overall effect of the variance limit is it will absolutely prevent a player from signing a longer term deal in general, not talking about 8-10 year deals. Moreso we are talking about the player that might get a 4 year deal will now only get 3.

---

5 years, a certain amount of money per year and the actual money will be very much like the CAP number. No shenanigans. I see no problem here. No one will be able to offer a certain player front or back loaded contracts, so I don't see much of a problem with players leaving via FA. Now you had a risk some team would offer a ridiculous long-term contract. Now you had a risk a rich team would offer much more, and then bury him in the minors if he doesn't pan out.

Seriously, this is the way to go. Maybe in the first few years it would take some adapting, but do you REALLY think there will be massive exodus young players towards rich teams? I don't think so. Loyalty will have the same effect - it took loyalty to sign a 10 year contract before. It will take loyalty to sign 2 5 year contracts. Actually, it's a much better concept - look at Vinny for example. Tampa would be happy to get rid of him, but how? If he had signed a 5 year contract, he either wouldn't suck so much or he would be playing elsewhere, with Tampa having money to spend on the young players (who, you claim, will apparently run away at first chance).

Front or backloading is a tool that was allowed and we got used to it. If it won't be allowed anymore for EVERY team, there won't be any major differences. Besides, did you, as an employee, ever got front or back loaded contracts with more than 5% variance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kubrick

The recently expired NHL CBA allowed the richest teams in the league to circumvent the cap at will with back-diving contracts featuring tacked on years, Long-Term Injured Reserved exemptions and by stashing bad contracts in the AHL or overseas.

The reality is the top revenue teams operated under a soft cap system. Even with a 5 year contract limit and a 5% variance, if the same loopholes for swallowing bad contracts are in the next CBA, the big market teams will continue to operate under a different standard than the rest of the league because they can afford to.

---

My, God, you're right. That's why the new CBA will prevent all this. Believe me, the loopholes were found because this is a competition. But the biggest benefits had the players. If you'd ask them, they would gladly keep everything the same. Hell, they would gladly play under NBA-like CBA. But we don't want that, right? That's why contract term limit, 5% variance and inability to bury contracts are necessary. Important difference worth noting is that in the NBA the "CAP circumvention" is perfectly legal and the league is fine with it (because they get $$$).

Yes, they did, because CBA was flawed. Did the "no burying CAP into the minors" get removed from the NHL's offers? I don't think so.

Also, the problem is that players are perfectly fine with these loopholes. It means bigger contracts. So it's the NHL that's too soft in these negotiations then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dana

Let's just say the NHL was content to play this year under the old CBA, ignoring the problems, while negotiating. A no-strike, no-lockout pledge is signed. The players were happy with the last CBA, the owners the ones wanting the change. Do you really think there would be any incentive for the players to negotiate? They don't want to change.

All it would have done is pushed the problem back to next summer. The owners demands now, wouldn't change by playing another season under the old CBA. The players willingness to concede to those changes also wouldn't be changed.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jammer06

I completely agree with your assessment excepting I can't see a 7 year second contract with a 5% variance at Kopitar money becoming the norm for gm's and I see it even less for the players if they want to sign at Browns levels for 5.

I do really wonder what's in it for the league to not have projected cash liabilities within a cap system. I can't quite figure what they would leverage that ability against.

---

You can't see it becoming the norm. Yes, I bet 8 years ago players and their supporters couldn't possibly imagine how they could still play hockey with such drastic changes. Times change, people will get used to these new norms. Also, I don't care about Kopitar and Brown's contracts - they would have signed for the Kings even if there was a 7 year, 5% variance limit. And they would sign solid contracts. I actually imagine Kopitar's CAP hit on a 7-year contract would be smaller.

It's because they want a contract's actual salary to be as similar to the CAP number as possible. That way you have the most fair system in place - each team can spend THAT much, with a little bit of wiggling room - and you also get contract's actual salary evenly and fairly divided if the player gets traded - so no "cheaper than CAP" players and also no "more expensive players than CAP" either. It may be hard to see what's so good in this, but I can see what's good in it: it adds to transparency and simplicity. You think that's not important? I'm sure it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaron

Fehr is the one who won this round.

---

It boggles my mind how pro-union you are. I'm fine with people taking a side, but from all of your posts you seem to think the players, and more hilariously Donald Fehr, are infallible and completely in the right on everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaron

The owners hyped a deal was imminent.

---

Fehr's bleak forecast came just moments after he had triumphantly announced that a resolution was imminent, telling reporters at a midtown Manhattan hotel that the sides were close to agreement on most of the major issues.

He said both sides had resolved their differences over player pensions and money, one of the key sticking points, and players had presented a revised eight-year deal collective bargaining agreement which they expected the league to accept.

"(We are) clearly very close if not on top of one another in connection with most of the major issues," Fehr said.

Yeah, what kind of a jerk would hype that a deal was imminent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USCKingsFan31

It boggles my mind how pro-union you are. I'm fine with people taking a side, but from all of your posts you seem to think the players, and more hilariously Donald Fehr, are infallible and completely in the right on everything.



Fehr's bleak forecast came just moments after he had triumphantly announced that a resolution was imminent, telling reporters at a midtown Manhattan hotel that the sides were close to agreement on most of the major issues.

He said both sides had resolved their differences over player pensions and money, one of the key sticking points, and players had presented a revised eight-year deal collective bargaining agreement which they expected the league to accept.

"(We are) clearly very close if not on top of one another in connection with most of the major issues," Fehr said.

Yeah, what kind of a jerk would hype that a deal was imminent?

---

Fehr might just be stupid. He messages the players to be ready for training camp as early as next Friday. He then spreads the word to membership about discussions regarding a 60 game season. Either he wanted to toy with the players or he really has no clue about what the hurdles were in negotiations. He threw himself back into the mix and stopped progress with negotiations. The response from one player Wednesday morning was "NHLPA is going to F*** this up" and he was right. Not all players are sheep, but not enough of them are free thinkers yet.

fehr's results speak for themselves.
and yes he won this round. The owners tried to end run around him, and they tried to buy the union off for 90M. They failed. Looks like they bought a lot of the fans with some well placed rumors and a few lies. I guess Frank Luntz is pretty good at his job.

I only seem so pro union because no one else bothers to posts their side. About 20% is devil's advocate, and 80% is recognition of a player group that has been getting hammered over the last 2 cba rounds. I mean, it was a given that they would give up 7% of hrr before anything even started. I also have little respect for owners who game the system against municipalities and lie about their finances. So yeah, I am pro players. (And I've never been a member of any union)

I mean have you read any tsn comments? Somewhere between sad and hilarious how anti-player they are. Now LGK isn't as bad, but it's still kind of shocking. Every single post before mine itt, related to the latest round of talks, was how badly fehr and the players screwed up. And how right the owners were. It really made me angry. And I apologize to Hockey Girl for being less than kind.